liberals' argument is that it's womens' right to have their birth control paid

for by their employers in obedience to the contraceptive mandate under obamacare

. if that's the case, why stop at birth control? Isn't it a woman's right to h
ave all the medications she needs paid for directly by her employer? If not, wh
y not? Why shouldn't the fed gov't mandate that all businesses provide free mat
ernity services to pregnant women? Once you claim that having free contraceptiv
es is a right, using liberals' logic, it becomes immoral for the gov't not to re
quire businesses to pay for it. Of course that doesn't take into account the in
convenient hypocrisy of the gov't that says businesses must pay for contraceptio
n but declined the opportunity to do so itself.
You could argue that women with certain health conditions need t
hose other medications a lot more than they need birth control, especially marri
ed women and of course women who aren't sexually active, or the horrible women w
ho actually wanna have kids and have no need for birth control. Furthermore, th
ose important medications are much more expensive and harder to get than birth c
ontrol, which is already widely available and as cheap as $9.
So if the argument is made that birth control should be mandated by the
fed gov't as a "preventative healthcare service" (furthering the liberal/radical
feminist notion that pregnancy is a disease that can and often should be "cured
" with an abortion or prevented with birth control), then using that same logic
and ideology, what reason does the gov't have to stop there? Why can't the gov'
t use its power to mandate all businesses pay for any drug, service, or treatmen
t it considers a part of preventative healthcare? The decision to just mandate
coverage for contraception is completely arbitrary and already unconstitutional,
therefore if an admin believes it has that power, even though the court said it
doesn't, why would they or a future progressive admin stop there? Logically, t
hey would have no reason to, since they've already established in their own mind
s that women have certain rights that should be given to them by the gov't, and
it would only make sense to expand those "rights".
That's a slippery slope that would lead this country in a radically different d
irection and put future admins outside the scope of their constitutional powers.
So it's a relief that the court rebuked the obama admin, but it never should'v
e gotten this far. They should've struck down the mandate when the entire law w
as challenged at the supreme court level several years ago, since it was as unco
nstitutional then as it is now. Hopefully this will set a precedent that will p
revent future admins from overstepping their constitutional authority and infrin
ging on the religious freedoms of small business owners and individuals all acro
ss this country.